|
"Officials appear to have failed to
advise Government of the wider economic, regional and social costs
of the moratorium - maybe that's because they only consulted with
themselves. Certainly we were not consulted on this matter.”
Mr Hannah said that the proposal to
freeze new applications for two years might well end up freezing
them for a much longer time. "We believe that it could last up to
seven years. First the bill, which will introduce the new
legislation, has to be drafted and introduced to
Parliament. And this legislation will allow many interest groups
to have an input into the regional plans so these could take many
years to finalise. These groups will also have the right of appeal
if the plan does not meet their objectives. And all this has to take
place before one licence for a new aquaculture facility is granted.
"This will stop development, and
could lead to the loss of markets, growth opportunities and
ultimately jobs.
"In order to meet the ongoing and
growing demand from our customers the industry needs access to new
water space. Demand already exceeds supply and if that continues too
long our customers will look elsewhere.”
Mr Hannah said explanatory notes
justifying the moratorium made misleading statements about a
'problem' with applications and a so-called 'gold rush' for water
space.
"For many applicants the term 'gold
rush' is offensive because it implies speculation and exploitation.
The New Zealand aquaculture industry has already contributed to
regional development and jobs created through significant investment
and commitment.
"People are applying for space that
they need to continue growing their industry in an managed and
sustainable way and plan to continue farming for the long term.”
Mr Hannah said emotive statements
about applications for water space were based on lack of
understanding of the differences between the requirements of
different species and the requirements of coastal and offshore
farming.
"Current Resource Management
thinking, as indicated through both public opinion and in the
Environment Court, favours offshore farms rather than ribbon
development within the coastal marine zone. In broad terms this is
acceptable for mussel farming but it's not necessarily suitable for
other species, such as finfish or even for species for which the
farming technology has not yet been developed.
"The mussel industry appears willing
to trial new submerged structures which allow farming off shore and
reduce the visual impact of farms.
"Offshore marine farming is different
to farming in sheltered bays just as high country sheep farming
differs from low country. Stocking densities will drop drastically
offshore. In sheltered bays farms carry an average of two to three
longlines per hectare; offshore farms will be much less than this.
"If the industry is to move offshore
it needs larger areas to make the farms viable and to provide the
necessary critical mass for the development of harvesting and
processing services.”
Mr Hannah said aquaculture is a
growing industry worldwide. "Aquaculture is the fastest growing
sector of the international food industry, with production expanding
at over 15 per cent per annum. Today, nearly one-third of the
world's fish and shellfish is produced by aquaculture.
"New Zealand has an opportunity to
participate in this growth in a way that could benefit the whole
country, but the proposed legislation will deny us this opportunity.
We are at the leading edge and are now in danger of standing still
while the rest of the world moves ahead.
"New Zealand currently produces all
global
Greenshell™ mussels, one-half of the world's cultured king
salmon, 3300 tonnes of pacific oysters and all global paua pearl
production.”
The New Zealand Aquaculture Council
will make submissions on the Moratorium Bill to the Primary Produce
Select Committee on Thursday. |
